- excellent and detailed reviews by three reviewers in under two months, with thoughtful remarks by the editor as well. The best of all journals I've submitted to, as far as the review process goes.
- Detailed and helpful reviews by three reviewers; reviews took seven months to come back (this was in 2014, under the previous editor).
- Detailed and critical, but helpful reviews by three reviewers delivered four months after submission; revised manuscript returned with thoughtful, but much abbreviated feedback from (I think) same three reviewers three months after second submission. Great experience with current editor (2017-18)
- Detailed and helpful reviews by three reviewers received four months after submission (editor's comments were more critical overall than the reviewers) (2017-2018).
- Current editor has been rude, unhelpful and also very untransparent throughout the process (2017-2018). Article went through two rounds of review only to be rejected in the end; the entire process spanned about 10 months. The first set of reviews were helpful, though it was hard to see that initially because as one commenter states above the editor made it a point to comment more harshly than the actual reviewers. Second set of reviews were abysmal - flat out wrong about empirical material they were attempting to "correct" in the article, picking on minor points in the article, or just a few lines of senior academic posturing and elitism. None of them appeared to have read the originally submitted article, raising serious questions for me about how this journal is managed. Each round of review took about four months and yielded four separate reviews.
- Detailed and helpful reviewers by two reviewers in two months.
- Very thorough process with constructive and detailed reviews. After two-three months, first editorial decision with suggested changes concerning article structure before sending manuscript out for peer-review. Then, two reviews (waited roughly five months). The last round of revisions took two months (two reviewers).
Anthropology and Education Quarterly
Anthropology and Humanism
Anthropology of Work Review
City and Society
Critique of Anthropology
- Only one review, took about 5 months.
- Reviews back in a little over 2 months. 2 very detailed reviews with helpful commentary from editors.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
- 2 reviews back under 5 months (revise & resubmit)
- One review back (consisting of one paragraph) after nearly one year.
- Two reviews: one very helpful and the other a one-paragraph gate keeper. Took about 8 months. I've had this kind of gate-keeping before at Current. Someone over there does not like the Marxian/heterodox approach. The editor was clueless and deferred to the gate-keeper but things should be better now that the new editor is an anthropologist.
- Two substantial reviews in under four months. Editors also had strong opinions.
- Only one review but it arrived in under four months.
- Three fairly detailed reviews back within three months (submitted 2018).
- Excellent reviews, three of them, but they take forever (7 plus months) to arrive.
- Three substantive and helpful reviews; took 8-9 months
- In the early days, terrible experience. 8-9 months on each round of review. Despite 3 peer suggestions to Accept (after an R&R), rejected by editor because it wasn't theoretically his cup of tea. Also said that because the journal had become more popular since i first submitted (which was a year and a half prior, given their slow review) the standards had risen. Not at all surprised to see the revelations of Hau that came out early June 2018.
- three reviews with lots of substantive feedback in 3.5 months
Journal of Latin American Caribbean Anthropology
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
Journal of Peasant Studies
Journal of Political Ecology
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Medical Anthropology Quarterly
Visual Anthropology Review